I've always said that one of the reasons that it seems clear to me that this is determined pre-birth, or at least really early, is that, when I think of the boys that I knew who were really picked on for "acting gay", even when they had serious (well, high-school serious) girlfriends and I'm pretty sure thought of themselves as straight at the time, wound up coming out by the time we were in college.

It's interesting to me that it doesn't necessarily hold as true for girls, too. (I honestly don't know many lesbians (not that I've avoided them, I've just not run into them), so I can't make any observations there.

I was acting gay immediately. Even the other gays in school didn't want to have anything to do with me because of guilt by association.

The girls loved me though.

I am in Boston now and it is fab. I was at the gym in Somerville and the guys were incredible.

The cable installer was hot, movers were hot, mailman is hot. They really love all their tats too.

I took the rare clumber to doggy daycare and they have a rare clumber puppy now attending the prestigious daycare. The application process if incredibly competitive and they only accept the top of the line rare breeds at this day care.

Yeah. Being quiet and not getting in fights is not being gay. Being attracted to the same sex is gay. And some kids are gay. I assume that you are attracted to girls (same for me). Did you ever wonder what makes Titus and Paladian go the way they go? My guess is they knew they were gay pretty early on.

As for the genetic thing, it may be a factor (remember until relatively recently most gays did marry and have kids). Plus it is pretty common in the animal kingdom (in about the same percentages as in humans). But there are other things that may cause it such as hormone levels in utero. Or it may be nurture too. It seems complicated. But I am pretty sure it is not just a life style choice.

The Curb Your Enthusiasm links above I put in are funny. Check them out.

I will make this observation (that is just my own subjective idea). But I think a lot of lesbians have had bad experiences with men. Which may be a factor in them being lesbians. That of course is not all lesbians (the ones that are oriented that way early on and who like leather and motorcycles--but without the guy).

St. Croix -- apparently you need a lesson in genetics. There are dominant and recessive genes. This is overly simplifying a genetics lesson; however, two straight parents may both have recessive genes which would give each child they have a 1/4 chance to be gay. So, your logic is a little off to say the least.

One of my best friend's son is gay. I knew it when he was 5 years old, without a doubt. I have two sons of my own, maybe the contrast was what struck me. Otherwise I would be clueless, since I knew nothing about boys until I had mine.

If there are any toddlers who exhibit signs of wanting to have sex with anyone, opposite sex or same sex, then that is a pretty strong indicator of sexual abuse by their parents/caregivers. Someone shows signs at that age, then someone else needs to go to prison.

The taboo phrase essential to any discussion of when kids start "acting gay" is "gender confusion." Gayness and gender confusion are two different issues. Probably all of my gay friends whose parents said acted gay even as children have serious problems with gender confusion as adults. You know, using feminine pronouns for themselves, seeking out older burly men for partners, enjoy cross-dressing, and they won't talk about or acknowledge the presence of their penis. A couple are even exploring surgical remedies. There are other things, too, but I'm trying to keep it civil here.

Then there's normal gay people who are comfortable with their gender and their sexuality. They acted like boys when they were boys and act like men now that they're men. We need to kick the T's out of our GLB club. The jerks.

Of the people I had found out later were gay, none I would have suspected. Back in the 70s/80s things were so hush-hush, people didn't really start going public with their identity till the late- 80s & 90s, i presume. At least I didn't notice people outwardly behaving gay, until it was more accepted in the media, which kind of helped determine what gay behavior is. There's still plenty of people who probably are and we'll never know, unless they make a public decision about it. And what about cross-overs ? And children's tendencies ? I really think it's all about dreams, which take form pre-puberty and at puberty, and natural relationship tendencies, thereafter.

I think it is more hormones than genes. I read a study once about how, if a woman has 3-4 sons, the likelihood of her son being gay increases with each male son being born after a few. Interesting...perhaps the "master plan" that there shouldn't be that many men out there reproducing.

I had a very dear friend, in her 90's at the time, who said to me, "I always knew he was different. He just didn't fit in and had different interests. I have always loved him but I didn't introduce him with the same pride I did my other son. I have decided that is wrong. I know he is gay and I need to be as proud of him as I am of my other son. He has a successful life, he is my son and I love him with all my heart."The family all knew he was gay but never talked about this with her.

Saint Croix said... My guess is they knew they were gay pretty early on.

The certainty people have about other people's sexuality just boggles my mind.

Were you able to identify the pedophiles, rapists, and hookers too? Were you able to spot the masturbaters, the celibates, the fetishists, the monogamists?

Why not presume innocence?

9/14/11 11:57 AM

As a kid I did not presume anything about sexuality. I did not know what homosexuality was. But I knew some kids who seemed different and sure enough they grew up to be self identifying as "gay." That was my observation.

As for the rest of your question, I think I could identify the masterbaters. That would be everyone. I did not draw any conclusions on the other points you raised.

I also remember a kid who seemed to be into torturing animals (I was immediately repulsed by that) and I suspect he might not be the most pleasant person now.

St. Croix -- apparently you need a lesson in genetics. There are dominant and recessive genes. This is overly simplifying a genetics lesson; however, two straight parents may both have recessive genes which would give each child they have a 1/4 chance to be gay. So, your logic is a little off to say the least.

Last I heard, the whole gay gene thing was still going nowhere, so this theory, like Darwin's, has a serious hole in it.

SJL said...

I think it is more hormones than genes.

I would tend to agree with that - in some cases.

However, the 'gay kids' thing makes me more convinced that Freud was right.

Innocence? There is nothing wrong with being straight or gay, at least in my mind. As for fetishes, if they between consenting adults, done privately, and do not hurt anyone, I am not going to be judgmental about them. As for masterbating, please. It is a normal thing.

I watched Commune the other night on Netflix. What was interesting is how the "free love" thing mostly did not work. People ended up pairing off and being couples and those people seemed the most happy in the long run. But hippies in the sixties were hardly the first group to try this. There is a long history of such experients in America in the 19th century.

Gee, I think a number of people are or can be a "mix" of sexual orientations.

Clearly it seems that most gay people - like most straight people - are born that way. As others have posted, when they were young it was clear that some of the other boys were gay. I remember that too.

But there's a middle segment that can be influenced by the, what? the environment? experiences? "something" and can become attracted to either gender.

A genetic disposition is just that: a disposition. It can be stronger in some and weaker in others. I think sexual orientation is a bit more mutable in some people - a minority - than others.

My wife used to watch Ugly Betty. I always wondered when they cast the the role of her younger brother if they asked the kid to identify as gay or not? I mean that kid was so obviously gay even before he came out on the show.

From this discussion and people's own personal experiences, it sure sounds as if being "gay" is a learned attribute.

Some innocent little kid exhibits some effeminate behaviors and, as a result, society and many of the people here automatically tell him that he is therefore "gay." Consequently, after being labeled as such, the kid grows up thinking that he is gay, even if he otherwise would never even think of having sex with another guy.

To project a sexuality on some five-year-old is especially egregious as a kind of child abuse.

Yesterday, here, I learned because Fred4Pres posted it ... that girls who begin menstruating early ... don't have to wait for words from their parents! They get to see "films in school."

I really didn't know this!

When I was young a lot of kids depended on their peers to find out the interesting adult stuff.

Now? NOW THE KIDS ARE TEACHING US!

Amazing, how far we've come to transferring the adult world to children!

All children are blessings. Take what you get!

And, for the good news, gone are the days parents made pacts with each other, promising their offspring in marriages that were meant to cement property rights.

I guess ,too, kids understand their sexuality very early? (While my son's roommate in college, who only came out after college, said he had a terrible time adjusting to "not being normal.") He's so brilliant. And, so talented! And, his parents are happily married. His mom is a school teacher ...

Yes. And, now they know. Which is the meaning of "coming out." I'm going to send my son this particular post ... because I hope he sends it on to Ian.

This whole "gay gene" thing needs clarification.An inherited condition is not the same as a congenital condition. "Orientation" is not a biologic term. It is a social-science term. You cannot look at a person's genetic makeup and determine his or her sexual orientation any more than you can look at a person's genetic makeup and determine whether they drive a foreign or domestic car.

I can think of two, both that I've known since middle-early high school. (Incidentally, I was thinking of them, and a few others who I wouldn't call dumb, when I made my initial comment- both had serious girlfriends when they came out.)

One wasn't dumb to start- we were in most of the same classes at the beginning of HS (I was a top honors student.), but he started to slip through the end of school, never went to college, and has just had non-skilled jobs since. I've recently reconnected with him through FB, and I'm pretty surprised at how not smart he seems to be to me (I guess that could be partially educational differences, but I think a lot of it is that he does lack some intelligence). The other followed the same post-HS path, but he was always sort of flaky and dumb seeming- we picked on him good naturedly for it when we were teens. Oh, and both have made what are generally pretty bad, self destructive life-choices, though I'm not sure if that comes from being gay, being dumb, or just coming from sort of disfunctional families (which both of them do).

It is interesting that "acting gay," the expression of behaviors we identify as gay, is dependent on cultural context isn't it? Would any non-western influenced culture observe the behavior of the boy in the video and link it to sexual orientation? Probably not.

Our culture does link the boy's behavior to sex preference in part because of media dissemination of gay stereotypes. The video would not be interesting or even understandable if it did not. However, this stereotype is, as so many are, is inaccurate.

It is inaccurate because of the significant numbers of feminine trait expressing but straight males and masculine trait expressing but gay males.

Heck, even those traits we define as feminine and masculine are themselves dependent on cultural context.

The issue is salient and worthy of observation and debate only because of the culture wars and how and why we define sexual orientation. The left's agenda needs to categorize toddlers as straight or gay (why not bi? Too thorny) to advance its premise that the bullying behavior is anti-gay, a greater degree of wrongness than just simple bullying. If it did not, why bother? And, of course, this greater wrong warrants additional penalty.

Is that fair? Alternatively, should society exact greater penalty from a "hate" crime? Can society reliably measure the motivation of the perpetrators to mete out additional punishment?

It scares me when we collectively presume to know the "true" motivations of others. That is not progress.

Bender: that he is therefore "gay." Consequently, after being labeled as such, the kid grows up thinking that he is gay, even if he otherwise would never even think of having sex with another guy.

I really don't think that that is the case. As I stated above, a lot of the guys that I knew that wound up gay* were involved in serious relationships when they came out (or came around, I guess)- I expect that it more came down to the fact that they finally had a girl there, ready and willing to make nice with them (maybe not have sex, but at least indulge in a little bit of lovin'), and they found that they just weren't interested in it the way that they knew that they "should" be. (Oh, BTW, one was dating my very best friend in the world at the time, and they did have sex- I'm adding that just for St. Croix's and Bender's benefit; there but for the grace of God that they didn't create offspring; it certainly wasn't due to any responsible behavior on their part.)

* I was highly involved in musical theater as a teen. I knew a lot of gay guys.

Used to be, in an argument like this one, the end-all answer was, "Of course it's genetic! Because who in their right mind would choose a lifestyle that draws such ridicule/discrimination?" It was hard to argue with that.

I do not know if homosexuality is genetic or not. What I do know is that middle-schoolers are experimenting with both hetero and homosexuality. My daughter's friend dated both boys and girls but has since decided that she is gay. So, while the grownups are arguing about it, the kids are watching Glee and Modern Family and experimenting because everything is acceptable. Attractive, even. If your first enjoyable sexual experience is with someone of the same sex, which way are you likely to swing?

What happens when Modern Family introduces a wildly popular polyamorous couple?

MarkG-Using the term "sexual preference" implies that a choice is being made. That is not okay these days. Saying that gay behavior is a choice makes you a hater.Progressives once made a great deal about some research that showed that self-identified lesbians were more likely to be left-handed than women who did not self-identify as lesbians.There are two problems with this "scientific" finding: 1)self-identifying is behavior, so you are still just measuring behavior, and 2) Being left-handed is associated with a significant increase in other traits, most of them undesirable, i.e. lower birth weight, shorter life span, and greater chance of exhibiting auto-immune disorders.

Everyone has a sexual preference or "orientation." Therefore, everyone is entitled to be interested in how it's determined.And don't forget, it may change over time. And perhaps, at least for some people, their preference or orientation is situational rather than absolute.

MarkG-Birth order is supposed to be a measurable determinant of "gayness" in men. Controlling for everything else, if your mother had a male child before you were conceived and born it makes you more likely to be gay if you are a male.The correlation is supposed to be significant, but not great.

While your notion sounds reasonable on the surface, it assumes things about a gay gene that need not be true. If a gay gene was 100% in effect in all cases then clearly those with it would not reproduce and die out in a single generation. However as Fred pointed out if gays marry and have kids (as they have done) the gene is not lost. Also there are other possible theories, because fitness is tribal not personal it is conceivable that a woman with the gay male gene might be more fertile, thus passing on the trait. this theory appears in the literature. Further unmarried gay uncles could increase the fitness of their nephews/nieces by contributing to protection of the tribe.

Actually the best evidence however is for a hormone effect in utero as Mark G alluded to. There are some behavioral studies of lambs born after injecting estrogen in their mother during gestation. If this is true this would mean homosexual proclivity would be hormone inducible/or repressable.

the kids are watching Glee and Modern Family and experimenting because everything is acceptable.

You know, I was watching Modern Family on Hulu the other day (my husband was out of town and I couldn't motivate myself to do anything useful), and I was really amazed at how intense the "gay stereotypes" were- Lady Gaga loving, prancing, interest in fashion, overly limber leg-crossing, etc. It was amusing, but, in a way, I had to wonder if that deep of steretyping was a good thing (for the movement interested in acceptance). I couldn't help but wondering if it wasn't almost like a minstrel show.

I guess I haven't seen it enough that I'm "invested" in the gay family, but it didn't make me want to embrace the idea of gay marriage/child-raising more so than I already do (I'm pro-SSM, but pretty skeptical of child-rearing). There are certainly worse parents in the world, but, to be honest, they seemed a little bit freaky.

Really? Ask a gay guy today, "If you had a choice, would you choose not to be gay?"

Any bets on how many would say, "yes, I would choose to not be gay."

Bender, are you arguing with me? Or are you arguing against the old argument? My point is that there is so much acceptance--celebration, even--of gays nowadays that the old argument falls apart. And, further, the old argument is dishonest.

The idea that somehow gays are deprived of free will is probably one of the most offensive to basic human dignity that one can put forth.

MarkG-I'm not an expert on the subject. I spent an idle afternoon looking at the scientific research behind measuring "gayness" and the source of "gayness".Researchers have always been aware that they were mostly forced to measure behavior. At one time they tried to eliminate the behavioral aspect of their measurements by using some kind of device that tried to measure the physical manifestation of sexual excitement in men while they showed them different kinds of porno.You can see the problem even with this more "scientific" approach -- suppose the subject was a a queer who wasn't aroused by dirty pictures?I looked at the studies (meta studies, really) that measured left-handedness against various behaviors and pathologies and the first thing I discovered was that even defining what it meant to be left-handed was difficult. People self-identified as being left-handed differently than objective measurements showed their handedness.At that point I decided that all the science surrounding "sexual orientation" was really just measuring behavior, and not always the behavior of the research subjects.

Yes, Lyssa, Modern Family and Glee hammer hard on the old stereotypes of gay behavior. Why gays don't see it as insulting, I don't know. Instead, they seem happy with the simplistic characterization of gays as limber-leg-crossers.

As for the parenting in the script, I wouldn't take that as representative any more than I would think that Glee is representatative of high school.

I knew a girl in college who was utterly stereotypically girly. She had long flowing hair, wore pretty dresses, pined over boys, etc.

I liked her, a lot. I liked her energy, her spirit, her smile, her playfulness, etc.

Flash forward twenty years, and now she's the biggest bull dyke I've ever seen in my life. She looks more masculine than I do, with a severe haircut, no makeup, masculine clothing, ungroomed body hair which she displays via sleeveless tee shirts and occasional shorts. She's a lesbian activist, and her radical leftist politics define her as a human being now (along with her gay identity). She's also, of course, completely insufferable nowadays.

The point is, she doesn't have to look like a man now. She chooses to make herself look as masculine as she does, and I've no doubt that if she put on a dress and some make-up again, and smiled once in awhile, she'd look as feminine as any straight woman.

Yet I've also no doubt that many would look at her now and say "See? Genetics!"

A study I'd heard of many years ago claimed that German women who were pregnant during the Allied bombings of Germany in WW2 gave birth to a disproportionate number of gay boys. Or boys who grew up to be gay, if you prefer.

The conclusion was that the stress these women endured messed with their body chemistry and possibly affected the child.

By the way, I apologize for using the term "bull dyke" in my earlier comment. I was struggling for some way to communicate the severity of this woman's current presentation, and that's the best I could come up with in a short time with a limited intellectual capacity.

lyssaloevelyredhead-"That's a remarkably silly argument. Do you have free will not to be attracted to women? Can you just turn it on and off as you please?" I'm afraid your argument is silly.Do you feel as though it is free will that makes you repel from the idea of eating a live spider? Can you turn that feeling of disgust on and off as you please?

MarkG wrote-A study I'd heard of many years ago claimed that German women who were pregnant during the Allied bombings of Germany in WW2 gave birth to a disproportionate number of gay boys.Exactly! The same "in utero stress" that some research shows produces more "gay" men is also associated with certain unpleasant pathologies. I do not think that the "gays were born that way" crowd is really thinking through their claims. Suppose the same in utero stress that tended to produce gay men also tended to produce people with criminal or self-destructive behavior. Would we then say that these people were not exercising free will when they exhibited criminal or self-destructive behavior?

There were a couple of women that set off my gaydar during high school, but I was astonished by the number of women that have come out since then....and good-looking women that never spent weekends alone.

Let's say sexual preference is a continuum. I wonder if people who are strongly homo or hetero are more inclined to believe it's nature, while people more who are more bi would tend to go with nurture or choice.

Flash forward twenty years, and now she's the biggest bull dyke I've ever seen in my life. ...

I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that it is different for females. I expect, if you delved into her history, someone along the way hurt her in a really nasty way. I'm not saying that's the case for all gay women, but I think it is the case for most of the ones that take it to extremes like that.

Kensington said... Also, why is anyone citing Titus as a real world example of homosexuality? Titus is a bit. Titus is shtick.

In fact, I remember him dropping the bit in one of the 2008 election night threads in order to gloat over Obama's election. He was basically Alpha Liberal. He isn't real.

9/14/11 1:48 PM

KENSINGTON, your skeptic friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Kensington, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, KENSINGTON, there is a Titus. He exists as certainly as rare clumbers and expatriate Wisconsinites live in the gay meccas of both coasts, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world of fashion and hairstyle if there were no Tituses. It would be as dreary as if there were no Kensingtons! There would be no caddy remarks, no fashion, no comments on his rich gay Indian husband, no devotion to constant gym work and facials to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight of seeing Packers fan wolf down brats and beers and wear cheese wedges on their heads. The eternal light with which fabulousness fills the dreary world of Wisconsin would be extinguished.

Not believe in Titus! You might as well not believe in Crack and Trooper! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the gay clubs in Madison to catch Titus but even if they did not see Titus going down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Titus, but that is no sign that there is no Titus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see Carol Herman dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that she is not there when you are not looking. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Kensington, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Titus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Kensington, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, Titus will continue to make glad the hearts of all those who appreciate his shallow wisdom and sense of style.

lyssalovelyredhead-Was my analogy too subtle? There is nothing preventing you from eating a living spider other than your own free will.If conditions changed -- if there was a million dollar reward on the line for the first person to eat a living spider -- you might race out to your garden to find a spider to eat.Disgust at eating bugs is a learned behavior that can be overriden. The ability to over ride this learned behavior probably varies highly from person to person.

While there is an inherent truth in human sexuality, a truth which in intrinsic to the nature of the human person (male and female), such truths do not make us slaves to our sexuality.

We are not slaves by nature. We have freedom. We are all free to depart from our intrinsic nature and act and think and believe contrary to it.

But it is in departing from that intrinsic, inherent nature of the human person, that we actually become, not more free, but less free. It is then that we become slaves to error. We have chosen to become slaves.

"desire" and "pleasure" are emotional terms. Isn't "gayness" supposed to be a human attribute with real world, measurable qualities?Let me rephrase my position more directly: asking someone whether or not some aspect of herself or himself is a result of a choice made in free will is not an accurate method of determining whether or not that aspect of herself or himself is, in fact, an exercise of free will.

It really is QUITE curious that in this movement for freedom for gays, that it is seriously asserted that gays are inherently unfree, that they do not, by their nature, have any freedom but are instead slaves to their sexuality. What is even more incredible is that they apparently wish to revel in this claim to be unfree.

Bender, Patty O, I think that ya'll are really taking it too far (into strawmen territory, in fact). No one's arguing that people are slaves or have *no* free will at all, just that the desires do exist. Can they be modified or reduced through discipline? Sure. Can a person choose not to pursue them? Absolutely. But telling a gay man that he should just stop liking men and like women instead is like telling a pregnant woman not to want ice cream, or like telling a young straight man not to look at a hot chick in a bathing suit. The desire's going to be there somewhere.

Bender, gays have no more and no less free will or freedom then you or me. I like men and am attracted to them, you, presumably, like women and are attracted to them. I expect that both of us felt these things from a fairly young age, and consider them natural. Could we change them about ourselves? If possible at all, it would be awfully hard, and I'd guess that we would never really feel comfortable or like we were living a full and honest life if we tried.

Actually, that is exactly what MANY people are arguing, that homosexuality is not a choice, that "gay" people are gay by nature, that "God made them that way," that they cannot be anything but homosexual.

And many others insist that, not only can they not be anything but homosexual, but that they cannot be anything but a sexually-active homosexual. They will argue that to expect chastity from a gay person is hateful oppression that is contrary to their very gayness.

lyssalovelyredhead, the problem I have with the "it's an orientation, not a choice" crowd is that they are vastly over simplifying human social behavior. Every single gay person was born that way? Really? No gay person ever decided to self-identify as gay or engage in homosexual behavior as a result of a conscious or unconscious choice, or as result of their social environment? Heterosexuals who discover that they are "really" gay are revealing their true nature, but homosexuals who say they have become heterosexual are liars?People who believe that sexual "orientation" is an inborn trait and that it is an immutable component of the self believe all of the above.

Lyssa, our intrinsic nature of every human person is heterosexual. Our intrinsic nature is also to be free. Although it is our nature, we are not slaves to our heterosexuality, we have the freedom to act contrary to our nature.

You or I could choose not to live and think and believe in a manner consistent with our heterosexual nature if we wished, just as those who choose not to be and call themselves "gay" have that freedom.

but that they cannot be anything but a sexually-active homosexual. They will argue that to expect chastity from a gay person is hateful oppression that is contrary to their very gayness.

Yes, those people are over-indulged children seeking justification for their lack of self-control. They are no different from a man who insists on impregnanting dozens of women simply because he can or a woman who spreads her legs without thought or care.

I do agree that calling it a choice/not a choice is a vast over-simplification. But I don't agree at all to the extent that there is no difference between a hetrosexual and a homosexual but for the way that the person has chosen to live his or her life. (You know those "super-tasters" who don't like broccoli or cilantro because they can taste that bitter chemical but not everyone can? It's probably more like that.)

All of this is not to deny the fact that many of us, if not all of us, have an impaired will. By our prior acts, thoughts, etc. (what religious folks would call sin) we have a distorted ability to discern truth from error.

And it is because of such an impaired will that folks will often act and think in a disordered fashion, a manner contrary to the truth of their human nature.

Especially when it comes to sexuality, which is one of the most powerful dynamics known, given the need to perpetuate the species, human beings have frequently thrown away their free will, choosing instead to be slaves to passion. But such slavery is a choice, not a matter of nature.

lyssathelovelyredhaed, I'm not trying to be pedantic or browbeat you over this, but I think that many people who accept the gay rights agenda are, whether they know it or not, agreeing to a set of suppositions that were created with the single purpose of integrating homosexual behavior into the mainstream, regardless of the consequences of integrating homosexual behavior into the mainstream, and regardless, too, of the will of the public.The reason that gay activists push the "inborn orientation rather than learned or chosen behavior" is solely because in the US that may accord them certain rights under the constitution that they can not achieve politically.

And, it got them! You think there's gonna be science exam, to find out if a comedy skit is true or not?

Now, whatever the genetic foundation, it's been running through every single culture as far back as time began for mankind.

In other words? First came the behaviors. Then, came the shamans.

For me? This was pure comedy gold. Especially when Larry David explains to this kid that hitler didn't like the Jews. And, the kid responds he would'a kicked hitler's ass. And, then he wants a swastika for his birthday president. (Because it has such "pure lines." Those that go up. Those that go down. And, those that go sideways.)

Comedy gold, I tell ya.

You know, it's possible this kid was just acting? He did a phenomenal job. Reminded me of Rahm Emanuel's interest in the ballet. Where all that's left of it now, is Emanuel's ability to twirl and kick ya in the teeth. (He didn't turn out gay.)

I'm saying there's a whole mix of factors involved, that's different for most people.

As a single man attracted to women, I had the choice about what to do with my attraction to them. I could indulge it, or not. As I experienced for the many years I was single, there was indeed very much a relation between how much I indulged such attraction and how compelled I was to indulge it more. I could feed it, and it compelled me more. I could become the lust, or I could tame it.

As a married man now, there's more at stake. But it's the same principle. I can shape how much I am attracted to other women. We become addicted to lusts and attraction, and like drug addicts think we are compelled to need it, have to have it.

That's not the case.

But the question here is about 'acting gay', which I think involves a whole lot of very complex social and biological conditions that, no doubt, feed into each other. And 'acting gay', no doubt, in our society doesn't mean 'being gay' though 'acting gay' when around people who celebrate gay probably leads to more people assuming that's how they always have been and living it. Some kids who never 'acted gay' have substantive attractions to the same sex. So, it's simplistic to suggest direct correlation even when what seems to be the case is so apparently obvious.

I don't think sexuality is as simplistic as people insist it is when trying to argue for their own cause. It is tied into our psyche, with all the impact and reverberations that our psyche brings. It's not as simple as saying we have a choice or that's just the way we are. It's often both, but how we respond to it shapes our perception of the reality of it, no matter what expression that sexuality wants to take.

I assume the kid in the Larry David clip is acting. Crack has a collection of clips of straight black men pretending to be gay (I think he was somewhat offended about it but I assume those men were acting too).

Fred4Pres wrote: No Titus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Kensington, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, Titus will continue to make glad the hearts of all those who appreciate his shallow wisdom and sense of style.

Fred, I think you misunderstand what Kensington meant. Titus is most certainly a real person who did indeed grow up in Waunakee--at least I'm convinced of that, having grown up in a nearby town about ten years before he did. There are just myriad little tells that establish that.

What Kensington referred to is the so-called "real Titus" (vbspurs' expression from years ago now). I too have seen a nasty side of Titus briefly emerge, most recently on Trooper York, just a few weeks ago. So I think that that part of Titus, whatever he may be, is just as real. Real people are complex like that. I've often wondered if Titus doesn't in fact sometimes tire of role playing once and a while and that's when the mask slips.

chickenlittle, I agree with Kensington that there is a schtick to Titus. Kensington did inspire me to do the Virgina letter (which was fun). That said, from reading Titus' comments (even without your knowledge of Wisconsin) he does read like a real person. And I have seen the mask slip and seen the dark side of Titus (not only with Trooper, but Meade, Ann, etc. in the past). I have known plenty of gay and straight people who could reveal a rather scary dark side at times. But I have also seen the mask slip and Titus reveal stuff about himself that is not dark and very human. Act or not, Titus is a complex piece of work.

Kensington--you are correct re "Titus". A made up schtick, not funny --the usual limp-wristed effeminate g*y. That said, the person who made it up (and many other bogus/anny. s-names on here-see if you can ID the joto)--lets call it "Hoss"..is queer. Closet case. But a leather boy sorts-- 'Roids and iron pumping sort.

Bender--I agree with you in terms of..questioning the determinism of some g*y advocates. Some do choose. So be it. yet ...they are not necessarily the worst citizens in the world. A choice between a professional lesbian couple next door,or baptist rogues , mormon freaks? viva Sappho.

Not every male kid who does ballet is gay (you can ask Natalie Portman about her husband). Rahm Emanuel may have some issues, but I am pretty sure he is not gay. But if you check you will find a huge proportion of them are gay. Why is that?

I do not think ballet makes you gay. I think gay male kids are drawn to ballet. And there is a societal/school factor of straight kids not wanting to be called gay that drives straight males away from ballet (even though as a straight male teenager you might find an excellent ratio of available women in a ballet studio).

For the males, ballet involves a lot of heavy lifting! And, something the russians excel at: High kicking men ... who can rise up in a sitting position. (I think it's called "The Kazatska.)

It's also interesting that the men who do ballet ... can put a woman who is doing a split ... high over their heads ... By putting their hands on her crotch. But this, alone, does not attract men to the ballet, I guess?

I'm sticking with my proposition that conservatives have no sense of humor. Or they would have seen the humor in this skit.

Instead? We're lead to a "scientific" discussion of "gayness." As if this was a new thing that "befell" mankind. (Like "original sin.")

But I know from experience at Temple; that rabbis discovered they made a mistake. When they threw out the kids who were caught chewing gum.

Because those kids just kept on walking. And, today they don't participate in Temples where donations are required.

Soon, ahead, this tragedy will also befall colleges. Who once depended on their graduates to remember them "in their wills." And, to donate, when letters came in the mail.

This skit is still one of the funniest ones I've seen recently. The only thing missing was a funny dog. Who would have jumped up on Larry David's lap and licked his balls.

Maybe, next time.

Then we can do a whole discourse on dogs ... and how they like to lick the places where humans smell a lot.

Also. Maybe, it's just me. But that kid looks like a pint sized John F. Kennedy. In his next mimicking assignment he should do a whole riff of JFK complaining about Jackie. (Because being married to an idiot has its drawbacks, even when the idiot is exquisitely beautiful.)

Heck, couldn't we get a little girl to play Marilyn Monroe?

Comedy gold is very very profitable. Even if conservatives aren't in the audience.

I do not see many conservatives on this tread saying that the Larry David skit is not funny (I find it funny--hell I linked it at first after Ann mentioned it--if only to see Larry catching shit again from Susie). But apparently Carol Herman thinks they have said that. She is sort of delusional that way.

I'm sticking with my proposition that conservatives have no sense of humor. Or they would have seen the humor in this skit.

Funny, right.Funny like Matthew Sheppard dying on a barb wire fence.It's the inhuman cruelty of your comment that really gets to me, Carol_Herman. It's like you're killing young Mr. Sheppard over and over again.

Terry, tell me that was some sort of joke. Matthew Sheppard? What does he have to do with this?

BTW, Matthew Sheppard was killed in a drug deal gone bad. And the guys who killed him thought the gay angle motive might have helped them (actually it backfired). Contemptable, sad, fatal for Sheppard, but not what it was originally presented to be.

By the way, the shirt on the little boy is straight out of the "cowboy" outfits kids used to wear in the 1960's. True. Back then the shirt would have been long sleeves. But the "pearl-ized" snap buttons, dead ringer for an old-old style.

KID WAS ACTING!

He was coached.

And, you bet. A young woman "on a first date" with a man who'd have been cast as her grandpa ... rings in the real "sociological" bell barrier that we've run past.

Here? No one notices.

All they notice is that the kid is playing the part like he's gay. Which is a joke onto itself.)

Let alone the hitler stuff, which is hilarious. Well, at least Jews know how to laugh!

Carol_Herman, if you go to the top of this comment page and click the "Show Original Post" link, you will see a post from Ann that DOES NOT include the "Curb Your Enthusiam" clip.Instead you see a link to a Salon piece, written by a person with no expertise in the subject, proclaiming that scientists have determined that children as young as three are already "acting gay".I think most or all of the "humorless" comments you have read by conservatives are refering to the Salon piece, not the Larry David clip.

Slate Magazine doesn't reach the audience you get with HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm!

As to "studies" that kids as young as 3 "know their sexuality" ... that's just BUNK!

Now. If you go back to the ancient Greeks ... what got in the way of sex with the wife ... was babies.

And, what RICH greek men then did was go after little boys. With gifts. Which was much appreciated by the families. Who hoped their sons would be born "attractive."

Meanwhile, in a different vein ... because attractive good looks where women were concerned involved not having pox scarring ... It was discovered (by Persians, I think), that exposing the children to a mild form of the pox, kept them disease free.

Which led, evenutally, to vaccinations. Which, back in the early 1800's ... killed about 10% of the kids, anyway.

Sexuality today ... by the way ... is probably something the toy companies know more about ... than the scientists.

Wow. To think that the most conservative posters suddenly used Slate as their bible, is actually funnier than the hitler jokes contained in the Curb Your Enthusiasm piece.

Now, if you want to take reality into consideration ... Where homosexuality begins when man begins to flourish on earth ... pissing off old the old shamans. Who use as part of their "group" schtick, shaming females. And, shaming men who don't want to mate with females ... has the highest irony attached to this!

Because there are conservatives, here, who really believe in those old biblical admonitions.

And, they bring with them their prejudices against gays. Which, according to Slate says "scientists can identify this in the young, by the age of 3." They don't pick the uterus, exactly. Because what kinds of sex can the growing kid in there really have?

You know, my mother believed if she attended symphonies when she was pregnant with me; it would be a joy for me to hear. (I think all I must have heard was the thumping of her heart. And, bowel sounds.) So much for the time she took to listen to symphonic orchestras.

By the way, you can't tell much from these stupid studies. But I always believed when gays were forced into the closet. Those closets weren't empty. They'd probably find relatives of theirs in there. But no one talked much. Kids were led to believe sex was bad. (But without sex you don't get to have pregnancies.)

The old "birds and the bees" stuff is how some parents dealt with their kids question: "Where did I come from?"

Adopted kids were told they were "specially picked."

And, in a very old Marcus Welby, MD episode ... their little girl acted all disappointed, because she wasn't adopted.

The first dream I remember ever having is still pretty vivid. I was only three years old, which I'm sure of because we moved shortly thereafter. The dream was of me and a same sex cousin wrestling on the floor. The overwhelming thing about the dream was that it was sexually exciting. I had an appreciation for that excitement even at three. That's what I most remember about it. Does that mean I was born gay? Because I'm very straight as an adult. I don't even get what women see in men. Am I a fag failure?